I welcome the representatives from the National Coal Miners Group: Mr. Gerard O'Connell, spokesman; Councillor John Fahey, chairman of South Tipperary County Council; Mr. Ned O'Connor, county manager of South Tipperary County Council; and Mr. Seán Lyons, a former coal miner. I invite Mr. O'Connell to make his presentation. As time is limited, I ask the delegates to be as concise as possible.
Miners’ Compensation: Discussion with National Coal Miners Group.
Mr. Gerard O’Connell
The National Coal Miners Group was established to advocate on behalf of persons formerly employed in the coal mining industry and their dependants, widows, families and communities. Our objective in attending this meeting is to advocate the establishment of a comprehensive and equitable form of compensation for those who have suffered injury as a result of their exposure to coal dust particles in the course of their work. We also wish to raise awareness of the degree of suffering endured by coal miners and coal mining communities in the last four to five decades, including a high incidence of cardiovascular disease, a lower life expectancy than the national average, serious financial hardship and inequitable treatment within the social welfare system. This issue is so pressing that it necessitates immediate action by the committee. We also wish to discuss, in a non-adversarial manner and on a without prejudice basis, the issue of potential State liability for injury and medical illness suffered by ex-coal miners as a result of their exposure to coal dust.
Three locations are included in the remit of our group. The first is the Arigna coal field in County Roscommon, which was established in the 17th century and closed in 1990 with the loss of 300 jobs. At its peak, it produced 350,000 tonnes of coal per annum. The second is Castlecomer coal field, formerly known as the Deerpark colliery, in County Kilkenny. At its peak, 100,000 tonnes of coal per annum were produced there. It closed in 1969. The third is Slieveardagh coal field in Ballingarry, County Tipperary. It is believed that mining first took place in Slieveardagh in the 12th century. It is a special case because the mines there were nationalised in 1941 with the enactment of the Slieveardagh Coalfield Development Act. In 1952, the operative functions of those mines were handed over to private ownership, but the State remained as licensor, as it did with Arigna and Castlecomer. Commercial mining ceased at Slieveardagh in 1991. At its peak in the 1950s, more than 500 people were employed there.
The second document I have circulated to members is a corpus of supplementary materials produced by the eminent cardiovascular specialist, Professor Muiris Fitzgerald. The purpose of these materials is to illustrate the health issues that are specific to coal miners. These include coal workers' pneumoconiosis, CWP, chronic bronchitis, chronic pulmonary disease, silicosis, industrial asthma, tinnitus and vibration white finger. We have outlined three case studies to illustrate the grievous damage done to coal miners in the Slieveardagh coal field, as one example of the three sites. The three case studies, patients of Professor Fitzgerald, are lifelong non-smokers who worked underground in the Slieveardagh coal field.
The first case study is Mr. Seán Lyons who is here with us today. Mr. Lyons has worked in coal mining for almost 50 years. A lifelong non-smoker, he has been diagnosed with CWP, chronic bronchitis and coal induced asthma. His disability has been independently assessed by Professor Fitzgerald at 50% to 80%. Members will see that Professor Fitzgerald has observed that Mr. Lyons's "dust exposure was extraordinarily intense and of a kind that seems unimaginable in 2001".
The second case study is Mr. Joseph McEnery, a gentleman who is too ill to be here today. He has been diagnosed with CWP and secondary chronic bronchitis. Professor Fitzgerald has put his abnormalities down to "his original severe coal dust exposure". The third case study is Mr. Patrick Grant who is seated to the left of Mr. Lyons. He has been diagnosed with a combination of chronic bronchitis, asthma and CWP. Professor Fitzgerald has observed that these conditions are "directly related to his inhalation of coal dust".
In the case of Castlecomer, we refer the committee to the study undertaken by Mr. Walter Kuentzel, a sociologist at the University of Vermont. Based on an analysis of graveyards in the Castlecomer district, Mr. Kuentzel has observed that miners who were buried there rarely lived past the age of 65 years, with their spouses often surviving them by ten to 15 years.
These data illustrate the massive health damage arising from the inhalation of coal dust. In regard to the case studies to which I referred, we contend there is a direct correlation between these gentlemen's continuous and excessive exposure to coal dust and their current medical conditions. The conditions that obtained in Slievardagh were replicated in Arigna and Castlecomer.
My next point pertains to liability. We have come before the joint committee today because the strategic approach of coal miners for the past three decades has been to lobby parliamentarians and local representatives. Everyone in our community is grateful for all the support we have received in that regard. However, our efforts have foundered because there has been an attempt to put forward social welfare as the only solution to coal miners' welfare problems. Allied to that, there is a misconception that the health and safety regime in the 1950s and 1960s and in 1965 in particular, was deficient in some way. I argue it was not. In 1965, the Oireachtas passed legislation that was remarkable for the time. I refer to the Mines and Quarries Act 1965. It amended the Factories Act 1955 and codified legislation relating to coal mining dating from early Victorian times.
For the first time, a statutory duty was placed on mine owners to ensure that mines would be worked, laid out and managed in accordance with the Act. Moreover, two fundamental statutory rights were accorded to every man and woman who went down a mine shaft in Ireland from 1965 onwards. The first was the right to adequate ventilation. They had an absolute statutory right to adequate ventilation and this was enshrined by section 56 of the Act. I refer to dust and I quoted from Professor FitzGerald's work earlier. The second most causative factor in the illnesses suffered by coal miners in Ireland is exposure to dust. One should be clear there was an absolute statutory duty to ensure that coal miners, under section 70(1) of the 1965 Act, were not exposed to excessive coal dust. In fact the duty went much further and placed a responsibility on mine managers to ensure that exposure to coal dust was minimised.
As for the State, it also had a form of liability enshrined in statute in 1965. While the State was the licensor of all coal mines in this country, under the 1965 Act it specifically had inspectorate, policing role and enforcement roles. Section 130 of the 1965 Act conferred upon the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, some of whose functions now have been taken over by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, the authority to establish a mines and quarries inspectorate to ensure the Act and the aforementioned statutory duties pertaining to excessive coal dust and ventilation were policed. The State failed in its duty to protect the miners and to uphold its statutory duties. From our investigations, we know that the inspections carried out in Slieveardagh, Ballingarry, were carried out by the mines and quarries inspectorate of the then Department of Energy. This was a State function, which was not assigned to agents or the coal mining companies, but was carried out by the State.
As for social welfare, I will comment briefly on this important point. It is worth bearing it in mind because this is the point on which the miners' cases have foundered to date. Two structural problems arise from using social welfare as a solution to mining problems. The occupational injuries benefits scheme is the form of social welfare payment administered by the Department to coal miners or to those who are unfit for work as a result of an accident at work or a condition they have contracted as a result of their work. The first problem pertains to the assessment of disability. I should note that Mr. Lyons, Mr. McEnery and Mr. Grant have waived patient confidentiality in respect of their medical records. Mr. Lyons's disability has been assessed by Professor FitzGerald of St. Vincent's University Hospital as being between 50% to 80%. However, the Department of Social and Family Affairs assessed Mr. Lyons's disability at 20%. Consequently, a variance of 60% exists between the respective assessments of Mr. Lyons's cardiovascular consultant and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Mr. Patrick Grant, who, as I have noted suffers from a litany of serious cardiovascular complaints, has been assessed by the Department of Social and Family Affairs as being entitled to 1% disability. This has been described by Professor FitzGerald as bordering on obscenity. Those figures speak for themselves in respect of how the social welfare code has failed miners.
The variance in the certification of disease arises from the definition of what constitutes a prescribed occupational disease. Many of the conditions regarded internationally as being contingent on exposure to coal dust are not recognised by the Department of Social and Family Affairs as a basis for an occupational injuries benefit. In the case of industrial asthma caused by coal dust, there is no pay-out for coal miners. The position is ludicrous. Even were the social welfare code to be amended and were the Minister to provide us with an undertaking to deal with this issue by way of a back payment, our view is this would not be sufficient.
I ask Mr. O'Connell to summarise as we are tight on time.
Mr. Gerard O’Connell
The back payment time bomb thus created would be a time bomb for the State. Our solution is to establish a compensation tribunal along the lines established by the United Kingdom Government. This is a fair, reasonable and equitable solution to this issue and is the only acceptable solution at this point. A medical assessment process, which is at the centre of the United Kingdom tribunal system, would recoup a fair entitlement to damages for Irish coal miners. At a time when there is much negative publicity regarding tribunals, it is worth bearing in mind that the acceptance rate for claims under the United Kingdom tribunal system was in excess of 90%. Loss has been established, causation has been established and a duty of care was established as long ago as 1965. Moreover, we argue that the State's liability has been established. The date of guilty knowledge, under the two English High Court cases that established the United Kingdom tribunal was held to be 4 June 1954. From that date onwards, the English High Court has stated it would be unreasonable not to believe a mining inspector would have known of the consequences of exposing coal miners to coal dust. We know that Scottish mining engineers were involved in the establishment of Lickfinn, Clashduff and Ballynonty in Slieveardagh. We know such knowledge was available in Ireland and it is inconceivable the State did not know in 1965.
This issue affects fewer than a couple of hundred people. The compensatory process could be ring-fenced by medical assessment. Finally, there is a moral, as well as a legal case for people who ensured this country was self-sufficient in energy resources, who worked in some of the most challenging work environments known to man, who paid a massive price in respect of their health and who in some cases gave their lives. We believe the moral case for adequate compensation exists and we submit this report. Our recommendation to the joint committee is the establishment of a compensation tribunal in statutory form on an non-liability basis, to award proper compensation to the coal miners of Ireland.
I thank Mr. O'Connell. I now welcome Mr. Martin Brennan, assistant secretary, and officials from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I ask Mr. Brennan to comment on the three presentations heard by members. I then will invite members to ask pertinent questions.
Mr. Martin Brennan
I thank the Chairman. Much ground has been covered and as my understanding is that only ten minutes remain to members, I am unsure how they will resolve that. I will take the issues as best I can and in the order in which they arose. I will introduce my team. With me is Dr. Eibhlín Doyle of the Geological Survey of Ireland, who has worked closely with me on the Avoca issue in the main, as well as on general issues regarding the mine waste directive and so on.
Mr. St. John O'Connor, who has been head of the mining division for some time and who has been chairing the steering group for Silvermines, sits to my immediate left. He has recently moved on and his successor, Ms Mairead McCabe, recently of the Houses of the Oireachtas, is only ten days in the job so I asked Mr. O'Connor to come along and assist on this occasion.
It is important to say at the outset that what has been said here both by the delegations and the Members of the Oireachtas will be carefully noted and examined when the transcript is available and brought to the Minister's attention. In the case of Avoca, the option of doing nothing really does not exist. The question then is what can be done which takes best account of the various competing interests. That said, the committee has heard mention of a feasibility study being carried out on our behalf. It is clear from the objectives of the study, which are in the written terms of reference for the consultants, that they must take account of all relevant issues, including habitats issues, heritage, tourism issues and future potential development. It is all intended to be covered by the consultants' report. We expect to get that report in the near future but I do not yet have an accurate date for it.
I said the option of doing nothing does not exist. It would be a financially attractive option from the State's point of view because the cost of doing all of the things that might be done in the rehabilitation of Avoca would come to a very significant figure. However, we must take account of the state of the site, the various issues which arise therein, the fact that State ownership is involved and the existence of serious issues like health, access and protection. The Avoca site is toxically polluted and is State-owned. The question is then what can be done about that while keeping maximum options open for other interests.
Everything the Department has done in recent times has been done in a very open, public and consultative way. We have had two public meetings in the area. Deputy McManus used the words "cover up". I do not think she meant anything negative by that in this particular instance. I assure the committee that we are determined to do this in a very open way, which is the modern way of doing the business of Government.
There are issues around, for example, the directive on the management of waste from extractive industries. It does not yet require actual intervention but it requires the State to have an inventory carried out and published and to share the knowledge and rehabilitation methodologies and so on with other member states in an expert committee. That alone suggests that something needs to be done about the toxic parts of it. The Avoca River south of the Meeting of the Waters has been described as the most seriously polluted water on the island and must be dealt with in some fashion under the water framework directive.
What we are looking for is a balanced outcome with consultation with all interested parties. There are serious issues about public access. These include: children and teenagers using it for recreational purposes; quad bikers rising dust in their activities; fencing that has been put up by the Department for public safety reasons, sometimes being taken down or broken to permit this sort of access; and a health issue, which one of the members raised.
That said, I am conscious that it has been said a number of times that the committee has visited the Silvermines site. If at any time the committee wishes to have a visit by its members facilitated, I am sure that can be arranged and the Department can assist with it. This is our first response to Avoca.
I will now move to Silvermines and clarify some of the issues that have arisen. The question of the Minister visiting there was raised. I am a Limerick man and know the area generally but the Minister knows it better than I do. That said, he intends to visit as soon as the works commence.
The question of what money is provided and what is being done with the money this year and in future years has been raised. It is clear it was always intended, as the Minister of State mentioned earlier, that this would be a project carried out over a number of years. The Government approved €10.6 million based on the original consultants' analysis. We have had more detailed work carried out by Golders, who are now the project management consultants, and it is clear that something in excess of €20 million will be required to complete the entire job.
The question of whether the provision this year is €2.2 million or more was raised. The actual provision this year is in excess of €3.5 million and might even be slightly in excess of €4 million. Some of it was being used for some preparatory work on roads to facilitate heavy machinery. Some of it is being used for the preparation of the EPA licence application for the Garryard site and so on. As was said earlier, we recently completed a tendering process for phase one and the tender came in at slightly under €2 million, which is to complete the work for which we went to tender for this year. My understanding is that the dust blow problem will be resolved in phase one this year and that phases two and three will comprise works on the dam, the settlement ponds and additional vegetation in respect of Gortmore. The main problem of dust blow will be solved this year.
In respect of the five or six separate projects that represent the rehabilitation of Silvermines, we now know that it is in excess of €20 million. It is not for me to comment on budgetary provision in the future but we are aware of the issue and the matter will fall to be decided. I do not know if there is much more that can be said.
The role of health agencies was mentioned once or twice. It is not for me to comment on the role of the various agencies, such as that concerned with food safety. I do not have much to say about their role but I will happily answer any further questions that arise in respect of the subject.
I am rushing through this conscious that the committee is operating under some constraints and that there may be some follow-up questions. I will deal with the issue of the coal miners and the presentation that has just been made. As far as I can see, this issue has been around for quite some time. In respect of a policy issue, I am not competent to pronounce on whether the State has responsibility for work-related illnesses in general and specific responsibility for the individuals or whether the social welfare code is the manner of dealing with issues like this. The question of what happened in the UK comes up regularly. The situation is significantly different in the sense that in the UK, the coal mining industry was almost fully state-owned so the state liability is direct. The question arose in the presentation this morning as to whether there is specific State liability. The question of State liability is a legal matter on which none of us here is really competent to pronounce. I am not in a position to accept the concept or make any further comment in respect of it.
I appreciate that there was a short interval in the late 1940s and early 1950s where the State did own Ballingarry but the State has had no ownership involvement since 1952. Apparently, this is a very important issue in the sense that if the State was to become involved in specific compensation schemes for specific employment-related illnesses, they could be ring-fenced if the State had a specific responsibility as an employer. However, it would be very difficult to ring-fence in any other circumstances. Multiple agencies, issues of health and safety and the 1965 Act and who is responsible for it arise. I am not certain, but the Act, which is specific in respect of mining and quarrying, still rests in the general maw of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and labour law generally.
We cannot comment on whether the social welfare code is or has been interpreted adequately. We are acutely aware of the issues that arise and the Minister of State has answered questions on the matter as his predecessor did before him. He has invited further submissions to be as helpful as possible while recognising that the Department has no further funds available for the creation of a scheme.
I thank Mr. Brennan and ask members to be as concise as possible to elicit the most information from him and his officials.
I regret we did not have enough time for a greater discussion with the coal miners group, who went to much effort in submitting a comprehensive document worthy of our consideration. I ask that the Chairman make time for the group in future.
Perhaps Mr. Brennan can clarify something in respect of the committee's argument concerning Silvermines. Various speakers, including the Minister of State, have mentioned figures ranging from €2 million to €5.5 million. Mr. Brennan mentioned a figure of €4 million. It suggests a great deal of money is being spent on bureaucracy or roads. North Tipperary County Council provided the actual figure for the work being done. To some extent, the amount is irrelevant. What we need to know is what is being done with the €2 million and whether it will solve the dust blow problem. It will not because the proposal the Department is offering to the people of Silvermines is patchwork. Perhaps Mr. Brennan can clarify the issue. The proposal covers the bare areas, but it ignores the following years' bare areas. The problem will still not be resolved in a few years.
If the Garrymore job would cost €5 million or, as was stated today, €7.6 million, why will it not be done, why will we waste money on additional contracts and why will North Tipperary County Council's time be wasted by bureaucracy? This job needs to be done because people have been suffering for 24 years. What works will be undertaken and will they solve the dust blow factor? What works to alleviate the other problems are planned for next year?
The Department's response was to the nation's coal miners, as it referred to Arigna and Castlecomer as well as Ballingarry. We are discussing a small group of people. It is not acceptable that the State wants to wipe its hands of them and, now that we are in affluent times, ignore their contributions to our economy during the bad times when they kept the country going. It will be the Government's decision. In local newspapers and on local radio stations, the former Minister for Defence announced that a package had been agreed for the people by a previous Government. The announcement was made at Christmas six or nine convenient months before an election, but the package never came about. Does the package exist and when will it be put into effect?
The people in question have highlighted disturbing aspects of the system's operation. For example, if an eminent expert concludes that someone who has opened his health records to public ridicule is 50% to 80% disabled as a result of working in the mines whereas the Department of Social and Family Affairs claims he is only 20% disabled, what expertise does the Department have? If we are treating people in this way, is it any wonder there is scepticism? I do not want to draw the Lisbon treaty into the debate, but people's distrust of politicians and Departments owing to being ignored for years forms part of the reason for the treaty's defeat.
I thank the Chairman, the Secretary General and members for listening to the concerns of the national coal miners group. This serious issue is a matter for the Government. That the Department responsible for a natural resource that kept the economy and country going during the bad times says it wants to wipe its hands of the sector is not right. The committee's support is necessary to advance the miners' genuine cause. In Britain, miners needed to go to court in 1998 and 1999 to have a tribunal established. That need not be the situation in Ireland. Rather, a tribunal could be set up to address a small group of people who, in their latter years, need to be told why they suffered while working for the State. I look forward to Mr. Brennan's response concerning the Silvermines works.
I look forward to more consideration for the National Coal Miners Group, which made some important points. I have a number of questions regarding Avoca. Given the statement that the study will be available soon, what is the timeframe? As it is of significant local interest, it is important that the committee should have a chance to consider it.
It was stated that, under an EU directive, an inventory is required. Has work begun or is it in the pipeline?
In terms of Avoca's related tourism aspects, has the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism been consulted as a matter of course? Will both Departments work to ensure the best result?
Concerning public access, the uplands council has done a great deal of work in terms of County Wicklow's national park. Walking is a favourite activity in the county. Deputations have pointed out that, instead of blocking off the area, we should develop it as part of the walkways of County Wicklow. I appreciate the Department's anxieties concerning quad bikes and so forth, but it would be a positive endeavour and I ask that the Department consult the uplands council, if it has not already done so, to consider the suggestion as a means of developing a tourism and recreation product on our doorstep. We should not miss the opportunity.
We are caught for time, as another committee is waiting outside. Spokespersons for the two main Opposition parties have spoken. With agreement, Deputy Lowry may ask a quick question, after which Mr. Brennan should reply.
It is not the Chairman's fault, but today's hearing has been unsatisfactory in that the three bodies deserved a better hearing.
The State accepts its responsibility to clean up Silvermines. The answer is to have one co-ordinated rehabilitation plan implemented over a precise period. The current difficulty stems from attempting rehabilitation on a stop-go basis. It leaves open to question whether the clean up will ever be completed. Gortmore is an example. I ask Department officials to recommend to the Minister that the funds required to carry out the rehabilitation, approximately €10.5 million, be provided immediately.
We have all tabled parliamentary questions regarding the miners' position. We get the usual response, namely, a kick to touch. We have all gone on deputations; I was on one in Gortnahoe to meet the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and on another to meet the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey. Will Mr. Brennan elaborate on the central message from these deputations — a reluctance to examine compensation packages on the basis of the precedent it sets for the mining industry? What legal issues have been identified in respect of this? There was a willingness on the part of the former Taoiseach and the Minister to examine the issue sympathetically. No official I have met questions the fact that the people concerned deserve a compensatory measure for their years of dedication, service and commitment under appalling conditions.
I know that time is against us and I made the point that more time was needed. How many miners or representative families are concerned? Regarding the cases of Mr. Lyons and Mr. McEnery, I trust they were appealed to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the same response was issued. I am sure the appeals process was challenged. There is an extraordinary discrepancy. Will this year's work at Gortmore begin in July?
Mr. Martin Brennan
I thought I made clear what would be done at Silvermines this year. It concerns dust blow problems and measures such as laying geotextile, rock covering, soil covering and revegetation which are meant to deal with the problems.
Will it be laid on the entire site?
Mr. St. John O’Connor
The entire site does not need to be rehabilitated. Some 24 hectares must be rehabilitated. They will be addressed in the first phase of work.
Mr. Martin Brennan
The work will commence within the next two to three weeks at the latest. It is a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's in the contract. The tender process is complete. In the work to be done next year in Gortmore we will deal with the dam and the settlement ponds and additional treatments not done this year.
Deputy Coonan referred to money and bureaucracy. One cannot bring in the machinery needed at the site without working on the roads. Bureaucracy costs do not come into it.
Regarding procurement efficiency, there are distinct phases to the work. Nothing is being lost by tendering for those phases. Even if we had the money to do it all this year and it was logistically feasible, we would still put it out to tender in blocks of work. I do not accept that money is wasted on bureaucracy.
Deputy Lowry referred to the figure of €10.6 million provided by Government decision. We are spending some €4 million this year. We have a capital envelope covering a number of years. Money has been identified for next year and the following year which will be available and spent. It is clear that €10.6 million will only be sufficient for the work at Gortmore and the start of work at Garryard. More money will be required, a total over €20 million. I am not in a position to commit to this; it is a budgetary matter.
The report on Avoca is due in July. We have had dealings with the county council and the fisheries board. We have not specifically spoken to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism but I am sure the report will be sent to all relevant agencies for comment in the normal process of evaluation and analysis. We envisage taking the second half of the year to complete the analysis and see where we will go.
Ireland is obliged to have an inventory of all old mine sites. The project is led by the EPA, assisted by Dr. Doyle and one or two others from the geological survey. It is at an advanced stage. As an inventory, it is only required to provide the information. There is no specific requirement for a follow-up beyond sharing information on methodologies for rehabilitation.
The fundamental issue about walks in County Wicklow is that the State cannot facilitate the creation of walks and access to them in areas it knows to have toxicity problems. We must address this problem. I referred to trying to achieve a balanced solution that would cover all the interests and created the best outcome. These interests include mine heritage, tourism and dealing with the river, where there is a different demand from anglers that the river be cleaned.
I know what I am saying about the miners is not attractive to those concerned but much of the discussion has concerned the degree of disability recognised by the Department of Social and Family Affairs as opposed to the degree proposed in medical evidence presented by the individuals. The committee could not reasonably expect me to respond to this. Perhaps it should hear from others. I do not know whether a former member of the Government made statements in an electoral context, beyond the fact that it was stated in the Dáil recently. The Minister of State invited the Deputy to give any details of this. I could be wrong but I do not think we have heard from him. I am not aware that any work was done, in the context of an election or otherwise. There are wider issues concerning the legal background. The policy issue is whether the social welfare code is the way to deal with health issues or whether the Government wants to take a different route.
I thank Mr. Brennan. The transcript of the meeting will be forwarded to the Departments concerned. The committee took on more than it should have at one two-hour meeting. Having three deputations on one day was too much. We will return to the National Coal Miners Group and allow it to make a presentation on another day because it was short-changed.
The joint committee adjourned at 11.50 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 June 2008.